1: \documentstyle[prl,aps,floats,psfig]{revtex}
2: \catcode`@=11
3:
4: \draft
5:
6: %my defs:
7: \def\mh{m_h^{}}
8: \def\vev#1{{\langle#1\rangle}}
9: \def\gev{{\rm GeV}}
10: \def\tev{{\rm TeV}}
11: \def\fbi{\rm fb^{-1}}
12: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
13: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
14: \newcommand{\hmu}{{\hat\mu}}
15: \newcommand{\hnu}{{\hat\nu}}
16: \newcommand{\hrho}{{\hat\rho}}
17: \newcommand{\hh}{{\hat{h}}}
18: \newcommand{\hg}{{\hat{g}}}
19: \newcommand{\hk}{{\hat\kappa}}
20: \newcommand{\tA}{{\widetilde{A}}}
21: \newcommand{\tP}{{\widetilde{P}}}
22: \newcommand{\tF}{{\widetilde{F}}}
23: \newcommand{\th}{{\widetilde{h}}}
24: \newcommand{\tp}{{\widetilde\phi}}
25: \newcommand{\tchi}{{\widetilde\chi}}
26: \newcommand{\te}{{\widetilde\eta}}
27: \newcommand{\vn}{{\vec{n}}}
28: \newcommand{\vm}{{\vec{m}}}
29: %
30: \begin{document}
31:
32: \twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname
33: @twocolumnfalse\endcsname
34:
35: \hfill\vbox{
36: \hbox{BUHEP-01-34}
37: \hbox{MADPH-01-1252}
38: \hbox{hep-ph/0112125}
39: \hbox{}}
40:
41: \title{Inverting a Supernova: Neutrino Mixing, Temperatures and Binding Energy}
42: \author{$^1$V. Barger, $^2$D. Marfatia and $^1$B. P. Wood}
43: \vskip 0.3in
44: \address{$^1$Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706}
45: \vskip 0.1in
46: \address{$^2$Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215}
47: \maketitle
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50:
51: We show that
52: the temperatures of the emergent non-electron neutrinos and the
53: binding energy
54: released by a galactic Type II supernova are determinable, assuming the
55: Large Mixing Angle (LMA) solution is correct,
56: from observations at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) and at
57: Super-Kamiokande (SK).
58: If the neutrino mass hierarchy is inverted, either a lower or upper bound can
59: be placed on the neutrino mixing angle $\theta_{13}$,
60: and the hierarchy can be deduced for
61: adiabatic transitions. For the normal hierarchy, neither can
62: $\theta_{13}$ be constrained nor can the hierarchy be determined.
63: Our
64: conclusions are qualitatively unchanged for the proposed Hyper-Kamiokande
65: detector.
66:
67: \pacs{}
68: \end{abstract}
69: ]
70: Neutrino oscillations convincingly explain the solar and atmospheric neutrino
71: anomalies~\cite{solar,atm}.
72: Atmospheric data and initial K2K data~\cite{k2k} indicate
73: oscillations with
74: $|\Delta m^2_{31}\equiv m_3^2-m_1^2| \sim 3\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ and
75: \mbox{$\sin^2 2\theta_{23} \sim 1$}~\cite{kamk2k}
76: that will be tested to within 10\% accuracy at MINOS~\cite{minos,mbl}.
77: (For the standard
78: parameterization of the neutrino mixing matrix see Ref.~\cite{pdg}).
79: The large mixing angle (LMA) solution
80: ($\Delta m^2_{21} \sim 5\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$, $\sin^2 2\theta_{12} \sim 0.8$)
81: which is emerging as the
82: solution to the solar neutrino problem~\cite{global} will be
83: tested to 10\% accuracy~\cite{kland1} at KamLAND~\cite{kamland}.
84: Thus, in the near future, all parameters relevant to neutrino oscillations
85: will be known, except $\sin^22\theta_{13}$,
86: which is bounded above by 0.1 at the 95\%
87: C.L. by the CHOOZ experiment~\cite{chooz}, the sign of
88: $\Delta m^2_{31}$ and the CP violating phase.
89: In the longer term, long baseline neutrino experiments
90: using upgraded conventional neutrino beams could achieve a sensitivity
91: to $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ of about $10^{-3}$~\cite{super}, but neutrinos from
92: a galactic supernova can probe values that are more than
93: two orders of magnitude smaller.
94:
95: The objective of this Letter is to determine what the
96: expected neutrino signals at SNO and SK from
97: a Type II galactic supernova can tell us about
98: $\sin^22\theta_{13}$, sgn($\Delta m^2_{31}$),
99: the neutrino
100: temperatures, and the binding energy released in such an event
101: if the LMA solution is confirmed. Throughout, we assume that solar
102: and atmospheric parameters will be known to within 10\% from
103: upcoming experiments. Since low energy $\nu_{\mu}$ and $\nu_\tau$ are
104: indistinguishable at SNO and SK, only their transitions
105: with $\nu_e$ can be studied.
106:
107: \vskip 0.1in
108: \noindent
109: \underline{Supernova neutrinos}:
110: During the early stages of a supernova explosion, as the shock wave rebounds
111: from the dense inner core of the star and crosses
112: the electron neutrinosphere, $\nu_e$'s from electron
113: capture on protons are released resulting in a breakout or neutronization
114: burst that carries away $\sim 10^{51}$ ergs. The duration of this burst lasts
115: only a few milliseconds (no more than 10) and any non-electron neutrino
116: events at SNO during this time are a consequence of
117: $\nu_e\rightarrow \nu_{\mu,\tau}$ oscillations.
118: For progenitor stars of mass $\sim 15 M_{\odot}$,
119: numerical simulations find that following the neutronization burst,
120: 99\% of the binding energy released,
121: $E_b=1.5-4.5 \times 10^{53}$ ergs, is roughly equipartitioned
122: in the form of neutrinos and antineutrinos of all flavors~\cite{mod}.
123: Including effects of nucleon bremsstrahlung and
124: electron neutrino pair annihilation, the
125: luminosities are approximately related by
126: $L_{\nu_e} \sim L_{\bar{\nu}_e} \sim (1-2)\, L_{\nu_x}$ where
127: \mbox{$x = \mu, \bar{\mu}, \tau, \bar{\tau}$}~\cite{lowtau,violation}.
128: This emission occurs on
129: a timescale of tens of seconds.
130: The mean energies of the different flavors of neutrinos are determined by
131: the strength of their interactions with matter, with the most strongly
132: interacting neutrinos leaving the star with the lowest mean energy
133: {\it i.e.}, $\langle E_{\nu_e} \rangle < \langle E_{\bar{\nu}_e} \rangle <
134: \langle E_{{\nu}_x} \rangle$. The
135: authors of Ref.~\cite{lowtau} (see also Ref.~\cite{pinto})
136: emphasize that spectral differences are very small,
137: typically
138: $\langle E_{\nu_e} \rangle : \langle E_{\bar{\nu}_e} \rangle :
139: \langle E_{{\nu}_x} \rangle :: 0.85 : 1 : 1.1$. The spectra of neutrinos can
140: be modeled by pinched Fermi-Dirac distributions. We can write the
141: unoscillated
142: differential flux at a distance $D$ from the
143: supernova as
144: \begin{equation}
145: F_{\alpha} = \frac{L_{\alpha}}{24\pi D^2 \, T^4_{\alpha} |Li_4(-e^{\eta_{\alpha}})|} \: \frac{E^2}{e^{E/T_{\alpha}-\eta_\alpha} \, + \, 1} \:,
146: \label{fermi}
147: \end{equation}
148: where $\alpha=\nu_e, \bar{\nu}_e, \nu_x$, $Li_n(z)$ is the
149: polylogarithm function and $\eta_{\alpha}$ is the
150: degeneracy parameter.
151: The temperature of the neutrinos, $T_{\alpha}$, is related to
152: $\vev{E_{\alpha}}$ via $\vev{E_{\alpha}}=
153: 3 {Li_4(-e^{\eta_{\alpha}}) \over Li_3(-e^{\eta_{\alpha}})}T_{\alpha}$.
154: We shall use $\vev{E_{\alpha}}$ and $T_{\alpha}$ interchangeably since they
155: are equivalent to each other once $\eta_{\alpha}$ is specified.
156: Strictly speaking, weak magnetism
157: effects may result in $T_{\bar{\nu}_{\mu,\tau}}$ being about 7\% higher than
158: $T_{\nu_{\mu,\tau}}$~\cite{horowitz}. However, we have explicitly
159: checked that the inequality of these temperatures does not affect our
160: results.
161:
162: As the neutrinos leave the star, they encounter a density profile that
163: falls like $1/r^3$~\cite{dense}. If the mass hierarchy is
164: normal, {\it i.e.} $\Delta m^2_{31}>0$, (inverted, {\it i.e.}
165: $\Delta m^2_{31}<0$),
166: neutrinos (antineutrinos) pass
167: through a resonance at high densities
168: ($10^3-10^4$ g/cm$^3$) which is characterized
169: by ($\Delta m^2_{31}, \sin^2 2\theta_{13}$) and the neutrinos pass through a
170: second resonance at low densities
171: ($\sim 20$ g/cm$^3$ for the LMA solution) that is determined by
172: ($\Delta m^2_{21}, \sin^2 2\theta_{12}$)~\cite{dighe}.
173: Transitions in the latter
174: resonance are almost adiabatic, with an essentially zero probability of
175: level crossing. We denote the jumping
176: probability in the high density resonance by $P_H$ and adopt the potential,
177: $V_0 (R_{\odot}/r)^3$ with $V_0=1.25 \times 10^{-14}$ eV and the solar radius,
178: $R_{\odot}=6.96\times 10^{10}$ cm.
179: Note that
180: $P_H$ is the same for both neutrinos and antineutrinos~\cite{fogli}
181: and has an
182: $e^{-\sin^2 \theta_{13} (|\Delta m^2_{31}|/E_{\nu})^{2/3} V_0^{1/3} }$
183: dependence~\cite{kuo}. Thus, even an order of magnitude uncertainty in $V_0$
184: does not have a qualitatively significant effect on $P_H$.
185:
186:
187: \vskip 0.1in
188: \noindent
189: \underline{The integrated spectra at SNO and SK:}
190: Information on the neutrinos emerging from the supernova after the
191: neutronization burst will be contained in
192: $\nu_e$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$ spectra observed at SNO and SK.
193:
194: For the normal hierarchy,
195: the $\nu_e$ flux will be partially
196: or completely converted into $\nu_{\mu}$ and
197: $\nu_{\tau}$ with the survival probability given by~\cite{dighe}
198: \begin{equation}
199: P=P_HP_{2e} + (1-P_H)\sin^2\theta_{13} \label{prob}\,.
200: \end{equation}
201: The sensitivity of the signal depends on
202: $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ both explicitly
203: and implicitly \mbox{through $P_H$}.
204: The survival probability for electron antineutrinos
205: is $\bar{P}=\bar{P}_{1e}$~\cite{dighe}, which
206: is the probability that an antineutrino reaching the earth
207: in the $\bar{\nu}_1$ mass eigenstate interacts as a $\bar{\nu}_e$.
208:
209: In the case of the inverted hierarchy, the $\nu_e$ survival probability is
210: $P=P_{2e}$~\cite{dighe}, which is the probability that a neutrino reaching
211: the earth in the $\nu_2$ mass eigenstate
212: will interact in a detector as $\nu_e$.
213: The $\bar{\nu}_e$ survival probability is~\cite{dighe}
214: \begin{equation}
215: \bar{P}=P_H \bar{P}_{1e}+(1-{P}_H)\sin^2 \theta_{13}\,.
216: \end{equation}
217: Since $\bar{P}_{1e}$ and $P_{2e}$ depend only on oscillation parameters at
218: the solar scale (and the supernova's zenith angle $\theta_Z$),
219: nothing can be learned about $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ from the $\bar{\nu}_e$ ($\nu_e$)
220: flux if the hierarchy is normal (inverted).
221: \begin{figure}[t]
222: \mbox{\psfig{file=fig1.eps,width=8.5cm,height=12cm}}
223: \medskip
224: \caption{Determination of
225: the binding energy $E_b$, the supernova
226: neutrino mean energies (temperatures) and $\sin^22\theta_{13}$
227: for the normal mass hierarchy. The left-hand
228: and right-hand panels correspond to data simulated at
229: $\sin^22\theta_{13} = 10^{-5}$ ($P_H=1$)
230: and $\sin^22\theta_{13} = 10^{-2}$ ($P_H=0$), respectively.
231: The cross-hairs
232: mark the theoretical inputs, and the $90$\% and
233: $99\%$ C.L. regions are light and dark shadings, respectively.
234: $\vev{E_{{\nu}_x}}$ is
235: the mean energy of the non-electron neutrinos.}
236: \label{fig:1reg}
237: \end{figure}
238:
239: For either hierarchy, we expect little sensitivity to $T_{\nu_e}$ because
240: the survival probability of electron neutrinos is no
241: more than about $P_{2e}\sim \sin^2 \theta_{12} \sim 0.3$.
242:
243: For the 32 kton fiducial volume of the reinstrumented
244: SK detector (with a 7.5 MeV threshold),
245: and the 1.4 kton fiducial volume of the light water tank at SNO
246: (with a threshold of 5 MeV), we only consider events
247: that are isotropic and indistinguishable from each other; \mbox{they are}
248: \begin{eqnarray}
249: \bar{\nu}_e + p\ \, &&\rightarrow n + e^+ \label{nep}\,,\\
250: \nu_e + O \rightarrow F + e^-\,,&&\ \ \
251: \bar{\nu}_e + O \rightarrow N + e^+ \label{neo}\,.
252: \end{eqnarray}
253: We do not consider electron scattering events.
254: The good directional capability on these events
255: allows their separation, and they play an important role
256: in the reconstruction of the direction of the supernova that in turn determines
257: the extent to which earth matter effects may be important~\cite{lunardini}.
258:
259: Neutrinos will interact with deuterium in the 1 kton
260: fiducial volume of the
261: heavy water tank at SNO (with a 5 MeV threshold)
262: via the charged current $(CC)$
263: reactions,
264: \begin{eqnarray}
265: \nu_e + d &\rightarrow& p + p + e^- \label{snod}\,,\\
266: \bar{\nu}_e + d &\rightarrow& n+n + e^+ \label{nebard}\,.
267: %\nu_y + d &\rightarrow& \nu_y + p + n\,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ y=e,\mu,\tau \label{snoxd}\,.
268: \end{eqnarray}
269: In addition we include the reactions of Eq.~(\ref{neo}).
270: Two neutron captures in addition to a Cherenkov light cone can distinguish
271: $\bar{\nu}_e$-$d$ events from the other
272: charged current scattering events on deuterium or oxygen.
273: All $NC$ events
274: (whose signal is a single neutron capture and no electron), and
275: electron scattering events are neglected.
276:
277:
278: \begin{figure}[t]
279: \mbox{\psfig{file=fig2.eps,width=8.5cm,height=12cm}}
280: \medskip
281: \caption{The same as Fig.~\ref{fig:1reg} but for the inverted hierarchy.}
282: \label{fig:inv}
283: \end{figure}
284:
285: To simulate the energy
286: spectra for the channels under consideration at the two experiments we assume a
287: typical supernova~\cite{lowtau} at a distance of 10 kpc:
288: $E_b = 3 \times 10^{53}$ ergs,
289: $\langle E_{\nu_e} \rangle : \langle E_{\bar{\nu}_e} \rangle :
290: \langle E_{{\nu}_x} \rangle :: 0.85 : 1 : 1.1$ with
291: $\langle E_{\bar{\nu}_e} \rangle = 15$ MeV, $\eta_{\nu_e}=2$
292: $(T_{\nu_e}= \langle E_{\nu_e} \rangle/3.61) $,
293: $\eta_{\bar{\nu}_e}=3$ $(T_{\bar{\nu}_e}=
294: \langle E_{\bar{\nu}_e}\rangle /3.99)$,
295: $\eta_{\nu_x}=1.5$ $(T_{\nu_x}= \langle E_{\nu_x}\rangle /3.45)$,
296: $L_{\nu_e}= L_{\bar{\nu}_e}$ and $L_{\nu_e}=1.5 L_{\nu_x}$.
297: We fix $\sin^22\theta_{12} = 0.81$,
298: $\Delta m^2_{21} = 5.6 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$
299: and $|\Delta m^2_{31}| = 3 \times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$,
300: since variation of these parameters within their future bounds has very little
301: effect on the analysis. We generate $\nu_e$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$
302: spectra~\cite{lunardini} and then simulate data by
303: choosing a point from a Gaussian distribution centered
304: at the expectation for the bin and of width equal to its square root.
305: In all, there are four spectra;
306: one for SK,
307: one for the light water tank at SNO, one for processes
308: (\ref{neo}) and (\ref{snod}), and one for process
309: (\ref{nebard}). The SK spectrum is simulated with 18 bins and the SNO spectra
310: have 13 bins each.
311: We simulate four datasets, two for each type of hierarchy and for
312: two values of $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ that correspond to adiabatic ($P_H=0$) and
313: non-adiabatic ($P_H=1$) oscillation transitions.
314: We perform a $\chi^2$-analysis, freely
315: varying $E_b$, $\langle E_{\nu_e} \rangle$, $\langle E_{\bar{\nu}_e}\rangle$,
316: $\langle E_{\nu_x}\rangle$, and
317: $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ to find the $90$\%
318: ($\Delta \chi^2 < 7.78$)
319: and $99\%$ C.L. ($\Delta \chi^2 < 13.3$)
320: allowed regions in $E_b$, $\langle E_{\bar{\nu}_e}\rangle$,
321: $\langle E_{\nu_x}\rangle$ and $\sin^22\theta_{13}$. Although we scan in
322: $\langle E_{\nu_e}\rangle$, we do not count it as a free
323: parameter since we do not attempt to determine it (knowing a priori of the
324: limited sensitivity to this parameter).
325: We
326: allow the ratio $L_{\nu_e}/L_{\nu_x}$ to vary
327: between 1 and 2 to accommodate both perfect equipartitioning and large
328: departures from it. We fix $L_{\nu_e}=L_{\bar{\nu}_e}$.
329:
330: Figure~\ref{fig:1reg} shows the results of this fit for the normal hierarchy.
331: The left-hand
332: and right-hand panels correspond to data simulated at
333: $\sin^22\theta_{13} = 10^{-5}$ (for which $P_H=1$)
334: and $\sin^22\theta_{13} = 10^{-2}$ (for which $P_H=0$), respectively.
335: In either case, we see
336: that the supernova parameters can be
337: determined with high precision, but that $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ is
338: unconstrained.
339: Since the overall normalization of the neutrino fluxes depends critically on
340: $E_b$, it is determined with good accuracy.
341: The values of $T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$ and $T_{\nu_x}$ are also determined
342: precisely since these parameters control the
343: $\bar{\nu}_e$ spectral distortion (which is independent of
344: $\sin^22\theta_{13}$) obtained from
345: thousands of events at SK and hundreds more at
346: SNO. The experiments are not sensitive to $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ because
347: the $\nu_e$-d events at SNO and
348: $\nu_e$-O events at SK and SNO are statistically insufficient.
349:
350: Figure~\ref{fig:inv} shows the results
351: for the inverted hierarchy.
352: Again, the left-hand and right-hand columns correspond to data
353: simulated at $\sin^22\theta_{13} = 10^{-5}$ and
354: $\sin^22\theta_{13} = 10^{-2}$, respectively. In the case of non-adiabatic
355: transitions, an upper bound on $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ can be placed.
356: For adiabatic transitions, $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ and
357: $\vev{E_{\bar{\nu}_e}}$
358: cannot be simultaneously bounded if both are left free.
359: When we restrict $\langle E_{\bar{\nu}_e}\rangle$ to lie
360: between 10.5 MeV and 19 MeV and
361: $\langle E_{\nu_x}\rangle/\vev{E_{\bar{\nu}_e}}$ to be larger than
362: about 0.7 (recall that $\langle E_{\nu_x}\rangle/\vev{E_{\bar{\nu}_e}}$
363: is expected to be larger
364: than unity), a lower bound on
365: $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ is obtained.
366: For values of
367: $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ between $10^{-4}$ and $10^{-3}$, an upper
368: or lower bound can be placed on $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ depending on whether
369: it is closer to $10^{-4}$ or to $10^{-3}$.
370: In the inverted hierarchy, we have a lesser
371: sensitivity to $T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$ and $T_{\nu_x}$ since the $\bar{\nu}_e$ flux
372: is also
373: sensitive to $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ leading to competition between
374: these parameters. Bounds on $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ can be placed because
375: the $\bar{\nu}_e$ spectrum is more sensitive to $\sin^22\theta_{13}$
376: in the inverted hierarchy and the $\bar{\nu}_e$ signal at SK is huge.
377:
378: Although the regions in Figs.~\ref{fig:1reg} and~\ref{fig:inv} are
379: calculated assuming that the neutrinos detected at SK crossed both the
380: mantle and core of
381: the earth ($\cos \theta_Z=-0.93$), and those at SNO crossed the mantle only
382: ($\cos \theta_Z=-0.1$), we have established that
383: the bounds placed are
384: largely independent of the supernova's zenith angles at the two experiments.
385:
386: If the mass hierarchy is unknown at the time
387: of a supernova signal, it can be deduced
388: provided $\sin^22\theta_{13} \gsim 10^{-3}$~\cite{dighe,minakata},
389: and the hierarchy is inverted.
390: For values of $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ smaller than $\approx 10^{-4}$,
391: $P_H$ is not close to zero and the
392: survival probabilities are similar for the two hierarchies rendering
393: them indistinguishable~\cite{dighe}. In the case of a normal
394: hierarchy, we see from Fig.~\ref{fig:1reg} that $\sin^22\theta_{13}$
395: is unconstrained even for adiabatic transitions, thereby indicating a
396: lack of discriminatory power between
397: $P_H=0$ and $P_H=1$ or equivalently between the mass hierarchies. On the
398: other hand, for the inverted hierarchy and adiabatic transitions, a lower
399: bound on $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ can be placed which in turn means that
400: the inverted hierarchy can be selected over the normal hierarchy.
401: %Again, this is because of the large number of ${\bar{\nu}_e}$ events
402: %expected at SK, and the resulting high sensitivity to the inverted hierarchy.
403:
404: \vskip 0.1in
405: \noindent
406: \underline{Future prospects}:
407: The next generation of proton decay experiments such as
408: Hyper-Kamiokande (HK)~\cite{hyperk}
409: and UNO~\cite{uno} are expected to offer
410: a new level of sensitivity to the physics of
411: supernovae and neutrino mixing. We consider the proposed 1 Mton
412: HK detector. With no specific information about the detector, we treat it
413: as a scaled-up version of SK.
414: We assume a fiducial volume for supernova neutrinos of 890 kton,
415: which is consistent
416: with the fiducial volume to total volume ratio expected for
417: the proposed UNO detector~\cite{uno1}.
418:
419: We find that our qualitative
420: conclusions for
421: SK and SNO continue to hold for HK. The quantitative differences are easily
422: anticipated as a result of its larger volume. The supernova parameters
423: can be determined with greater accuracy although $T_{\nu_e}$ will remain
424: unknown. In the case of the inverted hierarchy and
425: adiabatic transitions, while
426: $T_{\nu_x}$ can be determined without theoretical prejudice,
427: a plausible window has to be chosen for
428: $T_{\bar{\nu}_e}$ to constrain $\sin^22\theta_{13}$.
429: Also, tighter upper or lower
430: bounds can be placed on $\sin^22\theta_{13}$. We emphasize that in the
431: case of a normal hierarchy, both $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ and the hierarchy
432: remain unknown.
433:
434:
435: \vskip 0.1in
436: \noindent
437: \underline{Summary}:
438: We have considered what information can be extracted from neutrinos detected
439: at SNO and SK from a galactic supernova.
440: The information they carry is of
441: major importance in understanding the astrophysics of supernovae.
442: The binding energy released in the supernova and the
443: temperatures of the non-electron neutrinos expelled may be determined
444: with good
445: precision for most values of $\sin^22\theta_{13}$.
446: Bounds on $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ can be placed
447: if the neutrino mass hierarchy is inverted.
448: In this case the hierarchy can be determined
449: if $\sin^22\theta_{13}\gsim 10^{-3}$.
450:
451: The above conclusions apply to Hyper-Kamiokande as well.
452:
453:
454: \vspace{0.1in}
455: {\it Acknowledgments}:
456: We thank E. Beier, G.G. Raffelt,
457: E. Kearns, R. Robertson and C. Walter for discussions and
458: the referees for helpful suggestions.
459: This research was supported by the U.S.~DOE
460: under Grants No.~DE-FG02-95ER40896 and No.~DE-FG02-91ER40676
461: and by the WARF.
462: %\vspace*{-.2in}
463: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
464: %\vspace*{-.5in}
465: \bibitem{solar}
466: B. Cleveland {\it et gal.} , Astropart. Phys. {\bf 496}, 505 (1998);
467: J. Abdurashitov {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf C60}, 055801 (1999);
468: W. Hampel {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B447}, 127 (1999);
469: S. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 5656 (2001);
470: Q. Ahmad {\it et al.}, {\tt hep-ex/0204008}.
471:
472: \bibitem{atm}
473: Y. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B467}, 185 (1999);
474: W. Allison {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B449}, 137 (1999);
475: M. Ambrosio {\it et al.}, {\tt hep-ex/0106049}.
476:
477: \bibitem{k2k}
478: S.H.~Ahn {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0103001.
479:
480: \bibitem{kamk2k}
481: G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi and A. Marrone, {\tt hep-ph/0110089}.
482:
483: \bibitem{minos} Fermilab Report No. NuMI-L-375 (1998).
484:
485: \bibitem{mbl}
486: V. Barger {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 053016 (2002).
487:
488: \bibitem{pdg}
489: D.~E.~Groom {\it et al.}, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 15}, 1 (2000).
490:
491: \bibitem{global}
492: Q. Ahmad {\it et al.}, {\tt hep-ex/0204009};
493: V. Barger {\it et al.}, {\tt hep-ph/0204253};
494: A. Bandyopadhyay {\it et al.}, {\tt hep-ph/0204286};
495: J. Bahcall {\it et al.}, {\tt hep-ph/0204314};
496: P.~C.~de Holanda and A.~Y.~Smirnov, {\tt hep-ph/0205241}.
497:
498: \bibitem{kland1}
499: V. Barger, D. Marfatia and B.P. Wood, Phys. Lett. {\bf B498}, 53 (2001);
500: R. Barbieri and A. Strumia, JHEP {\bf 0012}, 016 (2000);
501: H.~Murayama and A.~Pierce, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 013012 (2002).
502:
503: \bibitem{kamland}
504: The KamLAND proposal, Stanford-HEP-98-03.
505:
506: \bibitem{chooz}
507: M. Apollonio {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B466}, 415 (1999).
508:
509: \bibitem{super}
510: V.~Barger, D.~Marfatia and K.~Whisnant, {\tt hep-ph/0108090}.
511:
512: \bibitem{mod}
513: T.~Totani, K.~Sato, H.~E.~Dalhed and J.~R.~Wilson,
514: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 496}, 216 (1998).
515: H.E. Dalhed, J.R. Wilson and R.W. Mayle,
516: Nuc. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 77}, 429 (1999).
517:
518: \bibitem{lowtau}
519: M.~T.~Keil, G.~G.~Raffelt and H.~T.~Janka,
520: {\tt astro-ph/0208035}.
521:
522: \bibitem{violation}
523: R.~Buras, H.~T.~Janka, M.~T.~Keil, G.~G.~Raffelt and M.~Rampp,
524: {\tt astro-ph/0205006};
525: A.~Mezzacappa, M.~Liebendorfer, O.~E.~Messer, W.~R.~Hix, F.~K.~Thielemann and S.~W.~Bruenn,
526: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 1935 (2001).
527:
528: \bibitem{pinto}
529: A.~Burrows, T.~Young, P.~Pinto, R.~Eastman and T.~A.~Thompson,
530: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 539}, 865 (2000).
531: G.~G.~Raffelt, {\tt astro-ph/0105250}.
532:
533: \bibitem{horowitz}
534: C.~J.~Horowitz, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 043001 (2002).
535:
536: \bibitem{dense}
537: G. Brown, H. Bethe and G. Baym, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A375}, 481 (1982).
538:
539: \bibitem{dighe}
540: A.S. Dighe and A.Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 033007 (2000).
541:
542: \bibitem{fogli}
543: G.L.~Fogli, {\it et al.}, {\tt hep-ph/0111199}.
544:
545: \bibitem{kuo}
546: T.K. Kuo and J. Pantaleone, Phys. Rev. {\bf D37} 298 (1988).
547:
548: \bibitem{lunardini}
549: C.~Lunardini and A.Yu.~Smirnov,
550: Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf B616}, 307 (2001); K.~Takahashi and K.~Sato,
551: hep-ph/0110105.
552:
553: %\bibitem{burrows}
554: %A. Burrows, D. Klein and R. Gandhi, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 53003 (1991).
555:
556: \bibitem{minakata}
557: H.~Minakata and H.~Nunokawa,
558: Phys.\ Lett. {\bf B504}, 301 (2001).
559:
560: \bibitem{hyperk}
561: M. Shiozawa, talk at {\it "International Workshop on a Next Generation Long-Baseline
562: Neutrino Oscillation Experiment"}, Tsukuba, Japan, May 2001;
563: http://neutrino.kek.jp/jhfnu/workshop2/ohp.html.
564:
565: \bibitem{uno}
566: Chang Kee Jung, { \tt hep-ex/0005046}.
567:
568: \bibitem{uno1}
569: D. Casper, talk at {\it "New Initiatives in
570: Lepton Flavor Violation and
571: Neutrino Oscillations with Very Intense Muon and
572: Neutrino Sources"}, Honolulu, October 2000.
573: %http://meco.ps.uci.edu/lepton\_workshop/talks/casper/uno.pdf.
574:
575: \end{thebibliography}
576:
577: \end{document}
578: % LocalWords: Sudbury Kamiokande eV KamLAND CHOOZ reinstrumentation breakout
579: % LocalWords: neutrinosphere ms antineutrino supernovae
580: \vskip 0.1in
581: \noindent
582: \underline{The neutronization burst and SNO}:
583: To simulate the pulse-like nature of the neutronization burst spectrum, we
584: use a pinched Fermi-Dirac
585: spectrum with pinching parameter $\eta = 11$ as in Ref.~\cite{burrows}. We
586: assume only limited knowledge of the average energy of the neutrinos,
587: $\vev{E_{\nu}}_{nb}$,
588: and no knowledge of the total energy released in the burst.
589:
590: For the inverted hierarchy, the survival probability
591: $P=P_{2e}$~\cite{dighe}, which is the probability that a neutrino reaching
592: the earth in the $\nu_2$ mass eigenstate
593: will interact in a detector as $\nu_e$.
594: Since $P_{2e}$ depends only on oscillation parameters at the solar scale
595: (and the supernova's zenith angle $\theta_Z$),
596: nothing can be learned about $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ from the neutronization
597: burst if the hierarchy is inverted.
598:
599: We therefore turn to the normal hierarchy,
600: for which the $\nu_e$ flux from the burst will be partially
601: or completely converted into $\nu_{\mu}$ and
602: $\nu_{\tau}$ with the survival probability given by~\cite{dighe}
603: \begin{equation}
604: P=P_HP_{2e} + (1-P_H)\sin^2\theta_{13} \label{prob}\,.
605: \end{equation}
606: Now, the sensitivity of the signal depends on
607: $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ both explicitly
608: and implicitly \mbox{through $P_H$}.
609:
610: The neutrinos will mainly interact with deuterium in the 1 kton
611: fiducial volume of the
612: heavy water tank (with a 5 MeV threshold) at SNO via the charged current $(CC)$
613: and neutral current $(NC)$ reactions,
614: \begin{eqnarray}
615: \nu_e + d &\rightarrow& p + p + e^- \label{snod}\,,\\
616: \nu_y + d &\rightarrow& \nu_y + p + n\,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ y=e,\mu,\tau \label{snoxd}\,.
617: \end{eqnarray}
618: The number of $NC$ events is indicative of the total $\nu_e$ flux
619: leaving the star and the number of $CC$ events reflects the flux
620: of surviving $\nu_e$. Together they provide a measure of the survival
621: probability in Eq.~(\ref{prob}) and therefore of $\sin^22\theta_{13}$
622: assuming $\Delta m^2_{31}$ and the solar
623: parameters are already precisely measured.
624:
625: We consider possible numbers of
626: $CC$ and $NC$ events that could be realized at SNO for a supernova
627: between us and the center of our galaxy (8.5 kpc).
628: For each pair of possible numbers,
629: $N_{CC}$ and $N_{NC}$, we
630: consider the ratio $N_{CC}/(N_{CC}+ N_{NC})$ which is independent
631: of both the energy released in the burst and the distance
632: to the star, and
633: is only weakly dependent on the average energy of the neutrinos.
634: %Our choice
635: %of 10 kpc for the star's distance simply sets the scale for the number of
636: %events that can be expected at the SNO detector.
637: To calculate $N_{CC}$ and $N_{NC}$, we assume that SNO is operating with its $^3$He Neutral
638: Current Detectors giving a neutron capture efficiency of 57\%~\cite{snsno}.
639: %\begin{table}\squeezetable
640: \tabcolsep=.35em
641: \begin{center}
642: \footnotesize
643: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
644: %
645: \hline\hline
646: & & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Upper Bound} &
647: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Lower Bound} \\ \cline{3-6}
648: %
649: \raisebox{2.0ex}[1pt]{$N_{CC}$}&\raisebox{2.0ex}[1pt]{$N_{NC}$} &$90\%^{\vphantom{E}}$
650: &$95\%$&$90\%$&$95\%$\\ \hline
651: %
652: 1&2&---&---&---&---\\
653: %
654: 2&2&$4.3 \times 10^{-4}$&$5.1 \times 10^{-4}$&---&---\\
655: %
656: 3&2&$2.9 \times 10^{-4}$&$3.6 \times 10^{-4}$&---&---\\
657: %
658: 1&3&---&---&---&---\\
659: %
660: 2&3&$4.8 \times 10^{-4}$&---&---&---\\
661: %
662: 3&3&$3.4 \times 10^{-4}$&$4.1 \times 10^{-4}$&---&---\\
663: %
664: 4&3&$2.6 \times 10^{-4}$&$3.2 \times 10^{-4}$&---&---\\
665: %
666: 0&4&---&---&$2.5 \times 10^{-5}$&---\\
667: %
668: 1&4&---&---&---&---\\
669: %
670: 2&4&$5.2 \times 10^{-4}$&---&---&---\\
671: %
672: 3&4&$3.8 \times 10^{-4}$&$4.5 \times 10^{-4}$&---&---\\
673: %
674: 4&4&$3.0 \times 10^{-4}$&$3.5 \times 10^{-4}$&---&---\\
675: %
676: 5&4&$2.4 \times 10^{-4}$&$2.9 \times 10^{-4}$&---&---\\
677: %
678: 0&5&---&---&$4.8 \times 10^{-5}$&$2.1 \times 10^{-5}$\\
679: %
680: 1&5&---&---&---&---\\
681: %
682: 2&5&---&---&---&---\\
683: %
684: 3&5&$4.2 \times 10^{-4}$&$4.8 \times 10^{-4}$&---&---\\
685: %
686: 4&5&$3.3 \times 10^{-4}$&$3.9 \times 10^{-4}$&---&---\\
687: %
688: 5&5&$2.7 \times 10^{-4}$&$3.2 \times 10^{-4}$&---&---\\
689: %
690: 6&5&$2.2 \times 10^{-4}$&$2.7 \times 10^{-4}$&---&---\\
691: %
692: 0&6&---&---&$6.7 \times 10^{-5}$&$4.0 \times 10^{-5}$\\
693: %
694: 0&7&---&---&$8.4 \times 10^{-5}$&$5.6 \times 10^{-5}$\\
695: %
696: 0&10&---&---&$1.2 \times 10^{-4}$&$9.3 \times 10^{-5}$
697: %
698: \\ \hline\hline
699: \end{tabular}
700: %\label{tab:nb}
701: %\caption{Bounds on $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ for possible deuterium scattering rates
702: %at SNO associated with the neutronization burst. }
703: %\end{table}
704: \end{center}
705: %\smallskip
706:
707: TABLE 1: Bounds obtainable on $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ from the $CC$ and $NC$
708: events at SNO associated with the neutronization burst.
709: \bigskip
710:
711: \noindent
712: Although neutron capture on $^3$He has a lifetime of 16 ms, which is longer
713: than the duration of the neutronization burst, 80-90\% (depending on the
714: actual duration of the burst) of the incident
715: neutrinos will be confidently identifiable as those from the burst. This is a result
716: of the exponentially distributed time delay.
717: We determine the bounds that can be placed on $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ for each
718: pair of possible rates. The upper or lower bounds are found by
719: optimizing the ratio $N^{th}_{CC}/(N^{th}_{CC}+ N^{th}_{NC})$ with respect
720: to $\sin^22\theta_{12}$, $\Delta m^2_{21}$, $\Delta m^2_{31}$,
721: $\vev{E_{\nu}}_{nb}$ and the supernova zenith angle
722: so as to give the most conservative bounds
723: on $\sin^22\theta_{13}$. \mbox{The solar}
724: parameters are varied
725: by 10\% around their central values
726: $\sin^22\theta_{12}=0.79$ and $\Delta m^2_{21}=3.7 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$
727: in anticipation of KamLAND's sensitivity~\cite{kland1}, $\Delta m^2_{31}$
728: is varied within its projected $90\%$ C.L. range as given by the combination of
729: SK atmospheric data and K2K data with error bars halved~\cite{kamk2k}
730: (as very conservatively expected from the MINOS experiment~\cite{minos,mbl}),
731: and $\vev{E_{\nu}}_{nb}$ is allowed to take values between
732: $10$ \mbox{and $20$ MeV}.
733:
734: The bounds in Table~1 are the single-sided confidence
735: limits for binomial statistics, appropriate since ratios of small numbers are
736: involved~\cite{gehrels}. For many possible data pairs, SNO will be able to place a $95\%$ C.L.
737: upper bound on $\sin^22\theta_{13}$
738: that is more than two orders of magnitude below its
739: current value.
740: If no $CC$ events and a large number of $NC$ events are observed,
741: lower bounds on $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ can be placed
742: because this occurs for $P_H=0$
743: which implies a relatively large $\sin^22\theta_{13}$.
744: Aside from the fact that the $NC$ cross-section and
745: efficiency
746: are smaller than those for the $CC$ reaction, the
747: situation in which the $N_{CC}$ is significantly larger than $N_{NC}$ will
748: be the result of a statistical fluctuation and we do not \mbox{consider it}.